4.6 Article

Comparative Analysis of Membrane Vesicles from Three Piscirickettsia salmonis Isolates Reveals Differences in Vesicle Characteristics

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165099

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Oslo
  2. Research Council of Norway [233849]
  3. Biostruct travel grant
  4. EU

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Membrane vesicles (MVs) are spherical particles naturally released from the membrane of Gram-negative bacteria. Bacterial MV production is associated with a range of phenotypes including biofilm formation, horizontal gene transfer, toxin delivery, modulation of host immune responses and virulence. This study reports comparative profiling of MVs from bacterial strains isolated from three widely disperse geographical areas. Mass spectrometry identified 119, 159 and 142 proteins in MVs from three different strains of Piscirickettsia salmonis isolated from salmonids in Chile (LF-89), Norway (NVI 5692) and Canada (NVI 5892), respectively. MV comparison revealed several strain-specific differences related to higher virulence capability for LF-89 MVs, both in vivo and in vitro, and stronger similarities between the NVI 5692 and NVI 5892 MV proteome. The MVs were similar in size and appearance as analyzed by electron microscopy and dynamic light scattering. The MVs from all three strains were internalized by both commercial and primary immune cell cultures, which suggest a potential role of the MVs in the bacterium's utilization of leukocytes. When MVs were injected into an adult zebrafish infection model, an upregulation of several pro-inflammatory genes were observed in spleen and kidney, indicating a modulating effect on the immune system. The present study is the first comparative analysis of P. salmonis derived MVs, highlighting strain-specific vesicle characteristics. The results further illustrate that the MV proteome from one bacterial strain is not representative of all bacterial strains within one species.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据